I don't plan on trying it (at least any time soon). I don't even use ReShade anymore. Nothing wrong with using filters, I just lost the interest a few years back, and have grown used to native res and native sharpness/color grading in games. Then again, I calibrate all my (non-HDR) displays to 100 nits, so no doubt I'm in the minority of gamers (and a bit boring
) in this respect.
I guess I'm boring too, because, as I mentioned, I was never a fan of filters, and don't appreciate having my retinas burned by an overly lit display, either.
I wish I knew how to properly calibrate my sets. Perhaps in the near future I'll invest in a tool and follow a guide, since my TV has a built-in test pattern generator.
Appears that's the case, yeah.
If you want it to fill your screen with an upscaled resolution without stretching, and ensure the game doesn't override it, yup.
You're welcome, and, as far as I'm aware, G-SYNC is forced off for Firefox at default. At least, it is on mine from a quick peak at its profile in Nvidia Inspector.
Awesome! And yeah, it's not possible to enable G-Sync for Firefox (that's what I meant by having a profile that can't be changed individually). It's just that, prior to the firmware that enabled G-Sync, I never had a problem with tearing outside of games.
By the way, I was thinking about your recommendation to set a FPS limit of 3 below the display's maximum refresh rate. According to Nvidia, my TV's VRR range is 40-120Hz. Of course, due to current GPUs still not supporting HDMI 2.1, 120Hz is only available for resolutions up to 1440p.
However, I was able to add a custom resolution of 3840x2160 with a refresh rate of 66Hz, using CRU (a 10% increase over the previous max of 60Hz). Should I cap the FPS at 63, in 4K, then? Or, because the panel is capable of doing 120Hz, it doesn't really matter when playing in 4K, and I should limit the FPS only when playing in 1440p, to 117 FPS?